DEVIBEHN DUDHABHAI Vs. MANAGER LIBERTY TALKIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether appellant-Devibehn widow of workman is entitled to compensation in a claim for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act 1923 (the Act) for the fatal employment injuries sustained by her husband Dudha Raja and unfortunately whose case is travelling in a long legal conduit pipe for a spell of more than 1 decades. What a travesty of justice ? Appellant has assailed the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation at Porbandar in Workmen Compensation Case No. 17 of 1979. A short spectrum of facts leading to the rise of this appeal may be enumerated at this juncture.

(2.) On 2 6/03/1979 deceased workman-Dudha Raja who was working as a door-keeper in Liberty Talkies Porbandar sustained serious accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment culminating in his death on the next day in hospital. The cause of injury and death was heart attack. Widow of the workman for her and on behalf of her minor son inter alia contended that they are dependents of the deceased workman and that the deceased was earning monthly wages of Rs. 165.00. Therefore the original applicants claimed an amount of Rs.16800.00 plus costs and interest from the original opponents.

(3.) Original opponent inter alia contended by filing written statement at Exh. 12 that though the deceased workman Dudha Raja was employed as a workman on the date of heart attack he was not victim of employment injury. It was denied that on 26-3-1979 deceased workman had sustained employment injuries in the course of employment by accident. It was also denied that on account of such injury on the next day the workman died. No doubt it was admitted that the deceased workman had expired as a result of heart attack but it was contended that there was no nexus between the death and the employment of the workman. It was further contended that the deceased workman had died as a natural result of the disease from which he was suffering and therefore it could not be said that his death was caused out and in the course of his employment. Thus the entire claim was disputed.